Worst Performance Engine of All TIme

Trans_Maro wrote:

mapper wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote:

06HHR wrote: Pontiac 301. Even with a Turbo the 301 was a turd..

Yeah, they suck. Too bad one of my customers is setting records in NHRA stock eliminator with one: Shawn

Why? I am honestly asking. There are so many great GM small block options. Why the 301?

What part of "Stock Eliminator" escapes you? Besides, it's a Pontiac. If you want a Camaro, buy a Camaro. Shawn

Wow. Great answer. I guess I should follow drag racing more. Silly me. Thanks for reinforcing my opinion of F body owners.

Has anyone mentioned the ford vulcan? 3L pushrod v6 boat anchor. Came in the 1gen probes, Taurus, tempo, and some others

The Vulcan is by no means a performance engine. It was made to move appliances. For that, it does it's job. My Mazda B-3000 has one. No power, modest gas mileage, but at over 300K hard miles, spotty maintenance by PO, it does not consume ANY oil, starts all the time, and just keeps going. No, I would not swap it into anything, but there is a place for an engine like this.

1992-1994: pontiac grand am 2.3L SOHC Quad OHC L4. 120 hp (115 in 1993 and 1994), 140 ft·lbf (190 N·m) of torque.

the bad. way over engineered POS cam drivin water pump mounted a athe the wrong end of the head. weak headgaskets and a valve cover prone the warpage and leaking, i only worked on one that ever worked. plastic power steering pump resivior too closeto exhaust maniford. poor quality power steering hoses, brakelines and fuel lines

the good. ........the fluid leaks provided secondary rust proofing.and pest control.

mapper wrote: Wow. Great answer. I guess I should follow drag racing more. Silly me. Thanks for reinforcing my opinion of F body owners.

Here's the thing.

You're on a board full of people who race anything with wheels and I do mean anything. Yugos, Zamboni, X1/9, lawn tractors, creepers, ANYTHING.

We tend to respect innnovation and out of the box thinking a bit more than taking the easiest way out.

So asking "why" is a bit of a silly question, the only good answer you will get is "because we can" or "because they said we can't".

Also, ask anyone who owns a GM product that isn't a Chevrolet. We're all pretty damn tired of people vomiting out the generic "Put a small block in it" statement. There's plenty of good stuff from GM that isn't a small block Chevrolet.

If you follow that line of thinking, perhaps we should only race Miatas, Fox-body and F-body cars since they seem to be the easiest things to build for racing.

Last, I thought anyone who raced had some idea of what "stock" means. Sorry.

Shawn

Trans_Maro wrote: Last, I thought anyone who raced had some idea of what "stock" means. Sorry. Shawn

Some of the motorsports definitions of "stock" can get a bit convoluted. Stock eliminator is a bit more straightforward than, say, Pro Stock, but still allows for things like transmission swaps or changing an IRS for a live axle, as near as I can tell.

In reply to Trans_Maro: Maybe I should have said lots of great Pontiac motors. Unlike most people, I am into Le Mans, Grand AM, Nascar, Australian V8 Supercars, Indy, F1, etc. Not much into drag racing. By your reasoning, NHRA Pro Stock is stock also. And so are Nascar stock cars.

You have a chip on your shoulder, not my problem. Thought I'd learn about a motor I know nothing about. Been on this board for many years and normally just soak up good information from those who do know what they are talking about. I normally don't post much and now I remember why.

What about the D16A6 that came in the CRX SI? The rest of the world gets a dual cam engine with 20 more horse and we get some M3h machine.

In reply to ignorant: Whoa there. The D16 may not have been the most powerful lump that Honda ever graced the engine bay of a CRX with but it was still a fantastic, smooth revving, bullet-proof engine.

racer_ace wrote: In reply to ignorant: Whoa there. The D16 may not have been the most powerful lump that Honda ever graced the engine bay of a CRX with but it was still a fantastic, smooth revving, bullet-proof engine.

There are many D16's... As a performance engine I think the D16A6 was not their best offering to provide in the SI.

edit: ohh yeah I stil think the 454SS sucked harder.

In reply to mapper:

Sorry, your first post came off as sarcasm, my bad.

There are plenty of decent GM motors out there. No matter what engine it is, someone here has probably made it go stupid fast.

I don't watch drag racing much at all. Nascar is bloody boring.

Rick runs a 301T because he wants to prove they can be competetive and because of the class he runs in, he's required to run the stock block. a 305 Chevy would be an option but I doubt it would run as hard.

If you want to learn more about them, come on over to www.301garage.com

Shawn

aussiesmg wrote: [Stag V8 content] Made 180hp, it's only redeeming feature is that is the sweetest sound V8 sound ever.

There's a James Bond film with a Stag in it and that indeed sounded the business. But if that's all it has going for it, a 3.5 swap and maybe a good exhaust system w/ an x-pipe seems like an excellent solution.

The 8 Valve Porsche 2.5 motor (early 944, et al) Later version made good power, but the early onw was half the weight of the 5.0 but no nearly half the power. I guess they were going for Fuel economy? Pain in the ass to work on and yes I am saying it expensive for parts.

After a 924S and a 944 I never figured out where the "power band" was.

According to C. Lyle Cummins Jr, in his book "Internal Fire", the cannon is the worst performance internal combustion engine because the piston is thrown away after the first power stroke.

ignorant wrote: What about the D16A6 that came in the CRX SI? The rest of the world gets a dual cam engine with 20 more horse and we get some M3h machine.

The A6 is one of the better-flowing heads in the d-series stable, assuming the end user is into that type of thing

I think there would be two ways that one could gauge the "worst" motors. One would be that it was sold as a performance motor, but put out dismal numbers, and was unreliable. The other would be something that put out awesome #'s, but lacked aftermarket support, and any replacement parts. The 224hp Lotus-headed 2.2 in the Spirit R/T and Daytona IROC R/T would fall under the second category. Most of the locals out by me end up tossing in 2.5 SOHC turbo motors in place of those simply because there is nothing there for building them up, or even fixing them, which is a shame. The dismal #'s on some of the motors listed (mainly the 454 SS) were often times due to emission standards, and a company's unwillingness to come up with a new motor, so they are stuck with de-tuning a 7+ liter V8. It wasn't uncommon to see only 170hp out of 351 ford engines in the late 70's. Throw a pair of heads, a meaty cam, and some long tubes on that 454, and 400hp isn't unrealistic, based on the fact that you have seven liters of displacement to work with.

that being said, I'll stick to VW/Audi I-4/I-5 stuff.

Trans_Maro wrote: Last, I thought anyone who raced had some idea of what "stock" means. Sorry. Shawn

Funny. I thought I knew what stock meant UNTIL I started racing. Then I read the rule book for the SCCA "stock" classes for auto-x. Basically it says that "the car must be EXACTLY like it was from the showroom. Modifications can include (but are not really limited to) adjustable shocks, light-weight wheels, R-Compound racing slicks, air intake modifications, racing mufflers, brake pad upgrades, race alignment..."

Of course, this is the same group of people who wrote the rules for ST2. "This class is designed to provide a class for people to race 2-seat sports cars like the Miata. Cars can have a limited slip differential, but only if it is a viscous type." <== The Miata has a Torsen if it has one. This is banned. Who the berkeley are these people?

In reply to Trans_Maro:

That's cool. I can see where my question was not clear enough. The only Pontiac motors I know of are the 400 and 455. I had never even heard of the 301 but I always had Mopars and my friends had Camaros and more Camaros.

MostExaltedPotentate wrote: okay, I'm surprised it took to page 3 to acknowledge that the Fiero had a hacked pan. Of course, the Iron Duke wasn't a 'performance' engine and Fiero wasn't a performance car. I always considered it a commuter car.

I'd agree with the Iron Puke. The problem wasn't just small oil capacity, it went further than that. They had ECM settings that bounced RPM to 2500 - 3000 the instant the thing fired, and combined it with a standing fit oil filter that had no anti-drain down valve (it should have, but even specced properly, chances were that owners would foul that up by using the wrong one later).

Net result was that a much too high proportion broke rods and spewed oil out the side of the shattered crankcas, and if this happened with a hot engine, the oil on the hot exhaust could result in a fire.

Idiocy right up there with the original Pinto gas tank placement (and refusal to recall because paying the claims of the odd toasted owner was cheaper than fixing all of them).

Oh yeah - and the Iron Puke also had zip character, but that was par for the course as the design team had sold the whole idea to the brass as a commuter car and didn't sneak any peformance in until the 2.8 V6.

Well, relative performance as the cast iron head V6-60 had pretty poor flow, in the range of the MGB engine, but having 140 BHP from an engine that wasn't likely to blow up and turn you into the guest of honour at a personal BBQ was a definite advantage.

You can even force them to put out decent power - I still own a Fiero GT that I turboed. Under 5 secs. 0-60 is fairly satisfactory!

aeronca65t wrote: *Another* bad engine in my view is another Triumph engine: The SAAB-Triumph four cylinder used in TR7s.Frequent head gasket problems combined with head that get so stuck to the studs that you almost need a jackhammer to get them off.

I'll second (or third. I didn't read all the posts). This engine derived originally from the Triumph Stag V-8 and was cut in half for the Dolomite and later the TR-7. The aluminum heads were porous, the valve seat recession was ferocious, the timing chain was weak, they dropped valves for no apparent reason, my example (from a 1.85L SAAB 99e) had a large void in one of the rods, the "forged" crank could be scratched with your fingernail, head retention was stupifyingly bad design, the block had "window" webs, and don't even get me started on that asinine water pump. The motor did have a beautiful set of forged Mahle pistons costing somewhere around the Gross National Product of Botswana. I've built 17 engines and that one was more trouble than the other 16 put together.

A couple comments from the last 30 years of playing with cars...

I've seen plenty of circle track Iron Dukes that were NOT Super Duty blocks that lived at high rpms constantly. A friend's 4 cyl '80s Camaro circle track racer used the stock Iron Duke with a pontiac head and custom cam. Ran at 8000 rpm every event and lasted two seasons. he was part of a whole group of low buck racers that that's all they used.

I had a 403 powered '78 Trans am, and two fellow BSCC club members had 403 powered '79 Trans Ams. Dead nuts reliable (my buddy greg had his since new and at 150k miles hadn't had so much as teh valve covers off). But really quite rapid in both autocross and drag race with just true dual exhaust/headers, recurved distributor, and re-jetted quadrajet carbs. Mine was quite slow when i got it, but Greg said his woke way up after teh exhaust, so i duplicated his setup on my 120k mile motor and man, the difference was night and day. JUST those changes made the 2.43:1 final drive equipped cars into 13 second quarter mile cars.

Greg's car back in the day:

Early 12A and 13B rotaries CAN be very relaible if left completely stock, and the oil level is maintained (for the oil cooler) and the coolling system is kept up. I've seen N/A rotaroes last well over 200k miles with no issues if left stock.

Open them up for a rebuild, both stock and modified, and that went out the window, regardless of whether you did it on your dining room table or had a high end shop build them. I understand that since Pineapple Racing came along, things have changed slightly, though I still see way too many modded rotaries blown up way early. I played with rotaries way too long, both my opwn persona cars (R100, RX2, 2 RX3s and 3 RX7s) and crewing for IMSA RS, SCCA Pro rally, and Formula Libre racing teams.

My own RX3:

ignorant wrote: edit: ohh yeah I stil think the 454SS sucked harder.

There was one market for the 454SS. In the early 90's we had a few as wreckers to chase accidents and they may have been the best trucks for doing that. They wouldn't beat you up as a daily driver, had enough low end power to tow anything. I doubt that was the market Chevy was going for, but more than a few ended up there.

confuZion3 wrote: Of course, this is the same group of people who wrote the rules for ST2. "This class is designed to provide a class for people to race 2-seat sports cars like the Miata. Cars can have a limited slip differential, but only if it is a viscous type." <== The Miata has a Torsen if it has one. This is banned. Who the berkeley are these people?

1990-93 Miatas came with an optional viscous LSD. That rule was aimed directly at trying to give the little 1.6 Miatas an advantage against the "big block" 1.8, I'll wager.

I don't assume the name "stock" in a race class means anything. After all, I still refer to NASCAR as "stock cars"...

ignorant wrote: What about the D16A6 that came in the CRX SI? The rest of the world gets a dual cam engine with 20 more horse and we get some M3h machine.

It's a sweet little motor none the less. Honestly, most of the D series are fun, reliable and easy to work on. I beat the crap out of a base 88 civic with the d15b2 SOHC motor and while it was slow, it also loved to rev and even made pretty racy noises.

In reply to Chris_V:

It's funny how the die-hard Pontiac crowd always mentions changing cams, opening up the exhaust, changing timing and re-jetting the carb on any conventional Pontiac engine to gain horsepower.

Then in the next breath they hate on the 301 and Olds 403 cars as being dogs when the only things needed to wake them up are the same things you would do to a 350, 400 or 455.

It's like they stunk out of the box so why bother, nevermind that the 1978/79 400's were pretty poor perfomers when compared to the motors built six years before.

The Turbo 301 is around 10hp and 20lb/ft short of the 400 and 403 it replaced. Not bad for first-generation draw-thru turbo technology with a motor that is 100 cubes smaller.

On the Iron Duke. I've beat the hell out of a few of them and had a hard time killing any of them. Bad rod castings and poor owners gave the motor a bad rep.

The Iron Duke is in the same category as the Toyota 20/22R. There are SOOOO many out there that it's just cheaper and easier to buy a running one from a junkard so no-one ever puts money into a rebuild.

Shawn

Trans_Maro wrote: There are plenty of decent GM motors out there. No matter what engine it is, someone here has probably made it go stupid fast.

I submit: early Chevette 1.4l I don't believe it is possible to make that thing anything other than suicidally slow.